Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Background/Objectives: The aim of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of respiratory muscle strength training in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. We included RCTs that evaluated the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training in patients with PD versus no intervention, sham treatment, or a different type of intervention. Quality assessment and risk of bias were assessed using the Downs and Black scale and the ROB2 tool. Results: Finally, 10 studies were included. The methodological quality of the studies was "good" in most of the studies, with results ranging from 21 to 25. In terms of risk of bias, six of them indicated low risk and four of them showed unclear risk of bias. Data were pooled and a meta-analysis of maximum expiratory pressure (MEP), maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP), and voluntary peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) was performed. Meta-analysis indicated a significant overall effect of respiratory muscle strength training on MEP (MD = 17.08; 95% CI = 2.32, 31.84; p = 0.02) and on voluntary PEFR (MD = 1.50; 95% CI = 0.51, 2.48; p = 0.003). However, results in the meta-analysis showed a non-significant overall effect of respiratory muscle strength training on MIP (MD = 1.69; 95% CI = -11.91, 16.29; p = 0.82). Conclusions: The synthesis of evidence presented in this systematic review and meta-analysis underscores the potential of respiratory muscle strength training as an effective means of increasing MEP and PEFR in patients with PD.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.